SPE-203693-MS

Techno-Economic Comparison of Self-Lift and Gas-Lift Slug Mitigation in

Deepwater

Fikemi Fred, Afe Babalola University; Ndubuisi Okereke, Federal University of Technology, Owerri; Fuat Kara,
Sheffield Hallam University; Stanley Onwukwe, Federal University of Technology, Owerri; Adegboyega Ehinmowo,
University of Lagos; Yahaya Baba, University of Sheffield; Onyebuchi Nwanwe and Jude Odo, Federal University of
Technology, Owerri

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria,
11 - 13 August 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was not held. The official proceedings were published online on 11 August 2020.

This paper was selected and peer reviewed for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract and paper submitted
by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
With the most recent down turn in the oil industry, there is an urgent need to optimize production from
deepwater oil fields. Adopting a technically sound and cost-effective severe slug mitigation technique is
very important. In this work, a sample deepwater oil field in West-Africa operating at over 1000m water
depth, currently operating at over 150,000 bbl/d and with an oil API of 47 °, GOR of 385.91 Sm3/Sm3 and
a water-cut of over 10%; experienced slugging during it’s early life. This slugging scenario was modelled
and subsequently fine-tuned to severe slugging by moderating the flow rates. Self-lift and Gas-lift were
then separately applied to mitigate the severe slugging scenario. The results of this work highlighted that
the self-lift technique proves effective for valve openings of 0.85, 0.65 and 0.35 for a 4 inch and 3 inch
diameter bypass line. The gas lift technique proved effective with increased mass flow rate from 7kg/s and
12kg/s. Although both techniques mitigated the severe slug, the power consumption required by the gas lift
technique for 12kg/s the best scenario proved to be huge at about 75,921,254.54 kw and at over $10,000,000
(USD) cost. This was not the case with the self-lift technique which required no external power source for
its functionality.

Introduction
Severe slugging is one key flow assurance issue that is seriously affecting the production of oil from
deepwater oil fields. Recent studies, suggests that ensuring the steady and stable flow of crude oil from the
reservoir to the topsides has become a major target, especially in Offshore production systems (Enilari, B. &
Kara, F. 2015). The recent trend of low oil price, has necessitated the need to adopt cost-effective approaches
to solve critical flow assurance issues such as severe slugging in deepwater scenario. Offshore oil fields can
produce a significant amount of hydrocarbons. Subsea processing of hydrocarbons is a challenge and this
has prompted transportation of produced fluids in a multiphase flow stream. One of the major challenges
of the multiphase production of fluids is the production of slugs.
2 SPE-203693-MS

Within a two-phase-flow system, severe slugging can occur along a pipeline segment which has a
downward inclination angle that is followed by an upward-inclination angle which is reperesented by
another pipeline segment/riser. There is a tendency for accumulation of liquid to occur at the base of
the riser for the system described above due to relatively low gas and low liquid flow rates, the overall
effect being blocking of gas flow. Fluctuations in gas production could result in operational and safety
problems during flaring, and the high pressure fluctuations could negatively impact the field’s production
performance and ultimately lead to a reduction in recoverable reserves (Tengesdal et al., 2005). Detrimental
effects on production equipment such as production valves and manifolds have been proven to be caused
by Slug formation attributed to large fluctuations in pressure and flowrate (Vidal et al., 2013). This occurs
as a result of the alternating production of natural gas bubbles and crude oil. A number of mitigation
techniques have been proposed in literature. This paper gives a good understanding of some of the existing
mitigation techniques but focuses on comparing the self-lift and gas lift severe slug mitigation techniques
with reference to their effect on productivity and economic viability. Severe slug flow was found to depend
on the geometry of the pipeline riser-pipe system as such, severe slugging is an unavoidable phenomenon
(Schmidt et al., 1985).

Multiphase Flow
The transport of multiphase fluid in pipelines is very important to the petroleum industry. Typically, offshore
pipeline follows the terrain topography, having uphill and downhill sections. Often, liquid accumulation
occurs at the lowest points of the pipeline as shown in Figure 1 until it is blown out afterwards by
the compressed gas, leading to high instantaneous flow rates. This phenomenon is known as Severe
Slugging and has led to production losses within the oil and gas industry causing it to receive enormous
amount of attention (Sancho, AndréSancho, André. 2015. "Severe Slugging in Pipelines: Modelling, 2015).
Multiphase flow in pipeline simply refers to flow regimes, consisting of more than one phase.

Figure 1—Liquid build-up during severe slugging (Sancho, AndréSancho,

André. 2015. "Severe Slugging in Pipelines: Modelling, 2015)

Slug Flow
Slug flow regime is associated with varying liquid and gas flowrates and may impose significant threat to
production facilities; giving rise to: oscillations, increasing wear and tear of equipment, hindering separation
efficiency as well as lowering production rate drastically. Severity of slug flow mainly depends on its origin
and may be described in terms of liquid slug length and pressure fluctuations. Murashov (Murashov, 2015)
summarized the three main types of slugging by its origin in relation to petroleum multiphase production as:
1. Hydrodynamic slugging.
Murashov (2015) reported that hydrodynamic slugs are formed when waves generated by gas is
blown at sufficient speed over the liquid phase layer. In this case, slugs are formed as a result of
blocking of the whole cross section of the conduit when the wave crests reach the top of the pipe to
form slugs. As a rule of thumb, slugs generated by this mechanism are relatively short.
SPE-203693-MS 3

2. Operationally induced slugging.

This type of slugging refers to transient flow regimes in multiphase pipeline, such as production
shut-down/ramp-up/restart and pigging operations.
3. Terrain induced slugging.
As the name implies, this category of slug flow originated at the dips of pipelines and is usually
based on the profile of the terrain. There is a tendency for blockage of pipeline cross section due to
slug formation to occur when liquid accumulates at a dip. If a number of criteria are met, the slug may
grow up to considerable lengths until the upstream gas pressure build-up pushes it out of the dip.

Aim of Study
This work was focused on carrying out a technical and economic comparison of the self-lift and gas lift
severe slug mitigation techniques.

Literature Review
In this section of the paper, focus was placed on reviewing slugging phenomenon, key parameters that
influence slug flow behaviour, various types of slugs and the mitigation approaches available for handling
slugging issues as well as the slug mitigation techniques of interest; which are the gas lift and self lift slug
mitigation techniques.

Slugging
Omowunmi et al., (2013) deined a slug as a propagating breaking wave, which is generated in multiphase
flow in a pipeline due to a number of factors, which are related to the fluid properties, hydrodynamics, and
the geometry of the pipeline. Slug, therefore is the formation of large gas bubbles in a flow regime that
occurs within the multiphase pipeline transportation and production of hydrocarbons (Vidal et al., 2013). The
multiphase flow occurs in virtually all oil and gas industry processes, in the production and transportation,
wells and the links between these and platforms. Prediction of multiphase flow behavior has been conducted
in several studies due to their effects on productivity and safety of equipment (Vidal et al., 2013). The ability
to control slug formation is of key value to most companies in the oil and gas industry. A reduction or
complete removal of slugs in pipelines will result to achieving a greater economic potential. Several wells
tend to be shut down and in some cases a reduction in well productivity by up to 50 % (Shotbolt, 1986).

Slug flow behaviour key parameters

Slug flow behavior are influenced by the following key parameters that influence slug flow behavior. These
include:

• Liquid Holdup

• Pressure Drop

• Slug Length

• Slug Frequency

Liquid Holdup
Murashov (2015) defined liquid hold up as the volume fraction occupied by the liquid phase within a two-
phase gas-liquid flow. For instance, the liquid hold up for a two phase gas liquid flow with a gas volume
fraction of 0.25 is 0.75. This implies that the liquid volume fraction occupies three quarter of the pipe section.
4 SPE-203693-MS

Pressure Drop
Pressure drop is a measure of the pressure differential along the pipeline-riser system, as the fluid flows
from the pipeline-riser inlet to the topsides. It is governed by Beggs and Brill (Beggs and Brill, 1973)
correlation for the horizontal and slightly horizontal pipeline and Hagerdorn (Hagedorn and Brown, 1965)
vertical pipeline correlation. The Beggs and Brill (Beggs and Brill, 1973) correlation is reflected by three
key components;
a. Frictional pressure gradient.
b. Gravitational pressure gradient.
c. Acceleration pressure gradient.
d. Total pressure gradient.
These components sum up to give rise to the total pressure gradient. (Beggs and Brill, 1973)s, (Hagedorn
and Brown, 1965), (Ellul et al., 2004) and (Mandhane et al., 1974).

Slug Length
The slug length of a unit slug refers to the sum of the liquid slug length and the gas bubble. Slug dissipation in
the upward pipe inclination is suggested to be related to length, angle and diameter of the pipe (Omowunmi
et al., 2013), (Ragab and Brandstaetter, 2008).

Slug Frequency
The concept of slug frequency refers to the number of slugs passing across a section of a pipeline over a
specified period of time. It is a fundamental parameter required in the analysis of fatigue in pipeline-riser
systems. OLGA delay constant is programmed to match by default to Shea correlation (Shea et al., 2004).
Shea correlation is defined as f = 0.68 Usl/D0.2 L0.6, where f is slug frequency expressed in s-1, Usl superficial
velocity liquid expressed in (m/s), D is pipeline diameter expressed in metres and L is the dimensionless
slug length expressed in number of Pipe D (diameter) (Omowunmi et al., 2013), (Shea et al., 1997).

Slug Mitigation Technique

Background. Yocum (1973) identified several severe slugging mitigation techniques (reduction of the
line diameter; the splitting of the flow into dual or multiple streams; the gas injection into the riser; the
use of mixing devices at the riser base, choking, and backpressure increase) that are still being used today.
According to Yocum (1973) increasing backpressure could eliminate severe slugging but disadvantageous
in that flow capacity would be severely reduced. He claimed that choking would also cause severe reductions
in the flow capacity.
Schmidt (1979) and Schmidt et al. (1985) reported that choking at the riser top would eliminate severe
slugging in a pipeline-riser system could be eliminated or minimized. The advantage of this method is that
flow rates and pipeline pressure remain unchanged. According to Schmidt (1979), gas injection eliminated
severe slugging but this approach was dismissed because it wasn’t cost effective due to high costs associated
with a compressor required for pressurizing the gas for injection and the pipeline required to transport the
gas to the riser base.
(Sarica et al., 2000) investigated severe slugging mitigation using gas injection and concluded that the
severity of the cycle was considerably lower for riser injection of about 50% inlet gas flow. Also, 300%
injection of gas did not lead to complete disappearance of severe slugging.
(Taitel, 1986) continued the work of Schmidt (1979) and provided a theoretical explanation for the
success of choking to stabilize the flow. Field examples showed that severe slugging can be eliminated
using choking.
SPE-203693-MS 5

Mitigation Techniques
Over the years, several researches have been carried out on slug mitigation techniques. (Sarica et al., 2000)
summarized the major available techniques for the mitigation of severe riser slugging, as:
1. Choking
2. Backpressure increase
3. Reduction of flow line diameter
4. Internal small pipe insertion
5. Gas injection into the riser base
6. Self-lift slug mitigation technique

Choking
This is one of the most common slug mitigation techniques. In this method, a choke valve is installed at
the top of the riser. By choking the flow, the riser operational pressure changes which in turn stabilizes the
flow. Although this is a proven technique to reduce or eliminate severe slugging, (Sarica et al., 2000) stated
that in order to avoid or minimize reduction in production, careful choking is needed to have the least back-
pressure increase. This is especially important for deep water as the back pressure increase could even be
more important due to potential production loses. (Sarica et al., 2014) suggested that this technique could
be combined with a feedback control to regulate the largest choke opening that will stabilize the flow. In a
test by Omowunmi et al. (2013), the results showed that increasing the flow line back pressure by topside
choking is more effective than gas lift alone for mitigating hydrodynamic-dominated slugs.

Back Pressure Increase

Sarica et al. (2014) stated this method requires significant pressure increases at the separator or riser head. It
is not considered as a viable an option even for shallow water systems since production capacity reduction is
experienced due to the back-pressures imposed. For deep-water production systems, reduction in production
capacity is expected to be worse.

Reduction of Flow Line Diameter

Significant reduction of the flowline pipe diameter is not feasible because, at smaller pipe diameters, the
required pressure at the manifold for the maximum design flowrate would exceed the available pressure
(Meng and Zhang, 2001).

Internal Small Pipe Insertion

(Wyllie and Brackenridge, 1994) proposed a retrofit solution to reduce severe slugging effects. This involved
inserting a small diameter pipe into the riser leading to the formation of an annulus between the pipe and
riser. This is used for gas injection. For an existing riser with no provisions for mitigating severe slugging,
this approach might be considered a good retrofit solution. However, this approach is disadvantageous in
that it poses problems for operations such as pigging. Pigging is considered to be one of the wax management
techniques, as such, pipe insertion may not be a suitable solution due to its inherent intrusiveness (Sarica
et al., 2000).

The Conventional and Unconventional Mitigation Techniques

The Conventional Method: Riser-Base Gas Injection Method

Naturally flowing oil wells use the natural energy of the reservoir to push fluids from the reservoir through
the wellbore and surface equipment to the tank battery. Further production from the well leads to a decrease
in flow rate and over time, an eventual cease in flow occurs. This is because as production proceeds, potential
energy is converted to kinetic energy associated with the fluid movement and as a result, the potential energy
6 SPE-203693-MS

of the reservoir is dissipated. Use of gas lift to offset the dissipated reservoir energy can be economical at
any point in the life of a well as it will aid in maintaining or increasing well production rate. Gas lift was
practiced in the United States for oil production over 100 years ago. The system used a valve design was
patented and given the name of "oil ejector" (Pittman, 1982)
According to Tengesdal et al. (2005), gas lifting involves injecting an external gas at the riser or pipeline
at the bottom of the riser with the aim of reducing hydrostatic head in the riser or to increase the gas-flow
rate in the pipeline. Application of gas injection in severe slugging remediation uses the artificial gas lift
principle and, according to Mokhatab et al. (2007), this approach was one of the most frequently used. The
static pressure of the liquid column is lowered by Injecting gas in the riser base and this shifts the flow
regime to annular or dispersed flow, thus solving the problem of slugging. However, Mokhatab and Towler
(Mokhatab et al., 2007) highlighted that gas injection may be relatively useless for transient slugging when
an already formed liquid plug arrives to the riser.

Advantages of Gas-lift Technique

Gas lift has the following advantages(PetroWiki, 2018):

• Sand production is imminent even in the sand control measures are taken. Gas lift is most suitable
for handling sand or solid materials because the mechanical problems caused by sand on gas lift
system is minimal in comparison with the havoc or damage on pumping methods (except the
progressive cavity pump (PCP)) for little sand produced.
• Gas lifting is suitable for Deviated or crooked holes. This is especially important for offshore
platform wells that are usually drilled directionally.
• Gas lift permits the concurrent use of wireline equipment, and such downhole equipment is easily
and economically serviced. This feature allows for routine repairs through the tubing.
• Installation of gas lift is compatible with subsurface safety valves and other surface equipment.
The use of a surface-controlled subsurface safety valve with a 1/4-in. control line allows easy shut
in of the well.

Disadvantages of Gas-lift
Gas lift has the following disadvantages (PetroWiki, 2018):

• Relatively high backpressure may seriously restrict production in continuous gas lift. This problem
becomes more significant with increasing depths and declining static BHPs. Thus, a 10,000-ft well
with a static BHP of 1,000 psi and a PI of 1.0 bpd/psi would be difficult to lift with the standard
continuous-flow gas-lift system. However, there are special schemes available for such wells.
• Gas lift is relatively inefficient and not cost effective, since large capital investments and high
energy-operating costs are usually involved. Compressors are relatively expensive and often
require long delivery times. The compressor takes up space and weight when used on offshore
platforms. Also, the cost of the distribution systems onshore may be significant. Increased gas use
also may increase the size of necessary flowline and separators.

The Self-lift Severe Slug Mitigation Technique

The self-lift severe slug mitigation approach is based on the injection of some volume of associated gas
from the production line into a section at about one-third from the riser base (de Almeida Barbuto, 1995).
This method, proposed by Barbuto for the first time, is different from gas-lift strategy for mitigating severe
slugging, which involves having treated gas compressed on the topsides and then transported through a
separate conduit to the riser inlet. The key principle of the self-lift technique is to transfer some volume of the
associated gas from the production line to the riser at a point just above the riser base. The transfer process
of the gas will reduce both the hydrostatic head in the riser and the pressure in the pipeline, consequently
SPE-203693-MS 7

reducing or eliminating the severe slug by maintaining the steady-state two-phase flow wthin the riser
column (Tengesdal et al., 2005). In practice, the method consists of a small by-pass conduit, connecting the
flowline and the riser, allowing gas flow and its injection at the designed position of the riser. In Figure 3
is the experimental set-up used by Tangedal in studying the application of Self-lift technique.

Figure 2—Flow stabilization by topside choke introduction (Schmidt et al., 1985)

Figure 3—Pipeline-riser system with bypass used in experiments of Tengesdal (Tengesdal et al., 2003)

Tengesdal (2003) reported that stabilized flow conditions were obtained more easily since injection and
take-off points were close to each other due to pressure balance between them.

Advantages of Self-lift Technique

Self-lift has the following advantages:

• It takes advantage of the gas energy of the reservoir

8 SPE-203693-MS

• It is a high volume method

• It can effectively handle sand related problems

Disadvantages of Self-lift Technique

Self-lift has the following disadvantages:

• The reservoir has to have relatively high GOR.

Methodology
In order to give a detailed review on the productivity of the self-lift and gas lift methods, the techniques
were simulated using a multiphase production software. Several flow simulators are in use in the industry;
some are known to be steady state tools while others are transient. A few of these tools include:
1. MAXIMUS
2. LedaFlow
3. OLGA

Background on OLGA (OiL and GAs) Modelling Tool

The OLGA (OiL and GAs) modelling tool is a transient one dimensional two-fluid equation based
multiphase flow tool. OLGA is typically used to model various multiphase flow challenges such as: wax,
slugging and hydrates on a transient basis (In time and space). OLGA is a widely used multiphase flow
simulator that has been developed by IFE and SINTEF since the 1980s and it’s accuracy is constantly being
improved till date via the OVIP (OLGA Verification and Improvement Project) (Ali, 2009). This study was
based on OLGA 7.00 version.
OLGA in principle solves seven (7) major equations including; three (3) separate continuity equations
for bulk liquid, gas and liquid droplets in gas, two (2) momentum equations with one for liquid and one for
combined gas and liquid droplets in gas, finally one (1) combined mixture energy conservation equation.
The entire seven (7) equations are related to each other with closure relationship to friction factors and/or
wetted parameter depending on the flow regime (Bendiksen et al., 1991);(Okereke et al., 2018). The main
OLGA equations are as highlighted below:
The equations are captured below;

Continuity Equations

• Gas phase equation:

(1)

• Bulk liquid phase equation:

(2)

• Liquid droplet within gas phase:

(3)
SPE-203693-MS 9

Momentum

• Gas phase equation:

(4)

Liquid droplets equation:

(5)

Liquid at wall equation:

(6)

(7)

Combination of liquid within gas phase and gas phase equation:

(8)

Key parameters in the equations are: Vg, Vl and VD representing volume fractions of gas, liquid and liquid
droplets. A is the pipe cross-sectional area, ψg is the mass transfer between phases ψe and ψD are entrainment
deposition rates and ρl is the density of liquid phase. G is the mass source. θ is the angle of inclination,
P reflects the pressure, ρg refers to the density of gas phase and d is the droplet deposition and S is the
wetted perimeter, Vr is the relative velocity and λ is the friction coefficient for gas (g), liquid (l) and finally
interface (i). In closing the system of equations in OLGA, it is required that the fluid properties, boundary
and initial conditions are clearly defined (Schlumberger, 2014). In this study, self-lift and gas-lift severe
slugging mitigation approach were studied via OLGA.

Economic Analysis
As key part of this project, economic analysis was conducted based on assessing the power consumption
for the key gas-lift scenarios considered and computing the equivalent cost to power the gas and comparing
it with the self-lift scenario involving no gas compression alongside the volume of production from both
scenarios. The results were subsequently discussed.

Self-lift and Gas-lift Severe Slug Mitigation – Deepwater Oil Field Case
In this work, a sample deepwater oil field within West Africa with Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) as captured
in Figure 4, was modelled. The oil field is located within a water depth of about 1463.04m below mean
sea level (Okereke, 2018). The field case-study has over 12 subsea production wells producing via 4-slot
production manifolds and is tied back to the FPSO via 8 (eight) production risers. This work is focused
on Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2) which consists of two production wells (X1 and X2) combined via a subsea
10 SPE-203693-MS

manifold (MF) and tied back to the topsides via an 8″ (inches) riser. The pipeline-riser section is shown
in Figure 7.

Figure 4—Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) Indicating Profile from Seabed to Topside (Okereke and Omotara, 2018)

Figure 5—Field Data Vs Simulation Result Comparison (Pressure)

SPE-203693-MS 11

Figure 6—Field Data: Hydrodynamic Slugging Scenario at 3000 BoPD

Figure 7—Base Case Pipeline-Riser X1 Case-Study

Considering Figure 4, Well X1, the well at the inlet point of Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) in focus is located
on the seabed at a water depth of 1447.8 m below mean sea level and is located at about 2712.72 m from the
base of the riser. Also, Well X2, is located at a water depth of 1447.8m and 1645.92m upstream of the riser-
base. The vertical riser connected to the production vessel is at water-depth 1513.03 m, with I.D (internal
diameter) of 8 inches and pipe roughness of 0.002m.
Table 1, indicates the pipeline-riser co-ordinates and section lengths for the numerical modelling of
Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2).
In this case-study, the fluid composition of the reservoir fluid being produced along Pipeline-Riser (X1
- X2) is captured in Table 2. The fluid was defined in PVTsim20. The water-cut was simulated as 3% on
PVTsim20 based on data from the operator. GOR was verified as 385.91 Sm3/Sm3 via PT flash carried out on
PVTsim20. The PT flash was carried out at a minimum pressure of 1 bar and maximum pressure of 300 bar;
as well as minimum temperature of −20°C and maximum temperature of 120°C. The fluid in consideration
is a relatively light oil of API 47 degree. It consists of relatively high molar composition of methane (43.3
Mol. %). The Heptane plus composition of the fluid is also relatively high (28.83 Mol. %). The composition
of the field fluid as well as the pipe configuration with over 2000m pipeline length makes it a bit difficult
for stable fluid flow to the riser at relatively low mass flowrate.
12 SPE-203693-MS

Table 1—Co-Ordinates and Section Lengths for Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) (Okereke, 2018)

Table 2—Fluid Properties of Field Data (Okereke, 2018)

SPE-203693-MS 13

The design pressure at the topsides separator is constant and given as 20 bara (290.075 psi). In Figure
5, a comparison of the field pressure profile with the simulation pressure profile was done with respect to
validation. Comparison of pressure trend showed a variation within +/- 15% which was within a similar
range as the comparison of Ledaflow and OLGA with experimental results captured in Belt et al. (Belt,
2011).
It is important to observe that the over-prediction of well X1 and X2 pressure by OLGA as captured in
the red asterisked square in Figure 5 is similar to the trend obtainable in existing literature (Belt et al., 2011).

Field Data: Slugging Scenario

The oil field that was simulated as part of this work had experienced hydrodynamic slugging on Pipeline-
Riser X1 as shown in Figure 6. The hydrodynamic slugging behaviour was observed from Well X1 along
Pipeline-Riser X1, when Pipeline-Riser X1 was operating at about 3,000 BoPD and low reservoir pressure
within the vicinity of Well X1. In this work, the 3000 BoPD condition was firstly modelled and the reported
hydrodynamic slugging was observed with pressure fluctuating between 58.7 Bara and 59.3 Bara as captured
Figure 6 in below.
The deepwater oil field was modelled via OLGA 7.00. In the base case-study, the field hydrodynamic
scenario at 3000 (BoPD) was consequently modified by moderating the mass flow rate at well X1 to 3.25kg/
s and well X2 to 12.13 kg/s. Well X1 is positioned at the on-set of the pipeline-riser section denoted as the
start point (0m) in the geometry Table 1. Well X2 is located at the manifold pipe section 35 position as also
highlighted on the Table 1. With well X1 flowing at 3.25 kg/s and temperature at well X1 operating at 70°C.
Well X2 was modelled as flowing at 12.13 kg/s. Well X2 temperature was also set at 70.5°C. The arrival
temperature at the topsides was modelled as 65.5°C and the arrival pressure was modelled as 20 bara.

Figure 8—Base Case HOL at RB and SEP inlet

In Figure 8, liquid volume fraction (liquid hold-up) was as high as over 0.8 [-] as shown in the black
spikes arriving at the inlets of the separator and suggesting the presence of severe slugging scenario with
possibilities of trips on the chokes and valves at the topsides separator.
There was oalso bservation of high level of pressure fluctuation in Figure 9, between the manifold and
the riser-base region with pressure fluctuating predominantly between 28 bara and 92 bara. This high level
of pressure fluctuation is associated with the low mass flow rate at well X1 (3.25 kg/s), with tendency of
liquid accumulation around the riser-base.
14 SPE-203693-MS

Figure 9—Base Case Pressure at Riser Base (PT Trend)

In Figure 10, the base case QLT (Volumetric flow) performance also showed a high degree of fluctuation
between 0 m3/d to over 40,000 m3/d on the average as highlighted in the black spikes arriving at the topsides.
The observed high liquid volume fluctuation has tendency of causing trips at the valves designed to regulate
the flow at the inlets of the separator.

Figure 10—Base Case QLT RB and SEP inlet

Self-lift Technique Case-Study

In this section, an OLGA model was developed; to capture the self-lift technique scenario. The model
consists of the pipeline section, the self-lift loop and the riser section as shown in Figure 11.
SPE-203693-MS 15

Figure 11—Self-Lift Severe Slug Mitigation Model

Table 3—Pipe Geometry Values between Wells and Take-off Point

Adapting Gas-lifting Technique to Pipeline-Riser X1 – X2

In a typical gas lift scenario, external gas is injected into the riser at riser-base region, to reduce the
hydrostatic head in the riser or to increase the gas-flow rate in the pipeline(Tengesdal et al., 2005). The
method of gas injection for severe slugging remediation is based on the artificial gas lift principle and,
according to Mokhatab and Towler (Mokhatab et al., 2007), was one of the most frequently used. Gas
injected in the riser base is deemed to be lower than the static pressure of the liquid column and shift the
flow regime to annular or dispersed flow, hence mitigating slugging formation.

Scenario 1: Opening at Valve 1: 1, at Valve 2: 0.85 @ 4in of Diameter

The reason behind this approach was to use the opening at the entrance of the fluid to allow maximum
amount of gas flow through the inlet bypass line and cause a high pressure outlet for the gas at the discharge
point to facilitate better interaction with the produced fluid.
Figure 12 showed a good response, mitigating the severe slug to between 20.0444 and 20.0446 bara.
This was a good sign for the self-lift technique, and although this result was close to our desired goal, other
scenarios were run to obtain the optimum condition necessary to beat this.
16 SPE-203693-MS

Figure 12—Self-lift Scenario 1 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 13, also showed a good response, it is seen that the HOL was reduced to between 0.205 and 0.206
and stabilized at 0.2053. This result is very acceptable to the field of oil and gas production.

Figure 13—Self-lift Scenario 1 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Scenario 2: Opening at Valve 1: 1, at Valve 2: 0.65 @ 4in of Diameter

Figure 14, seemed to act like the 0.85 valve closing scenario. Mitigation of the severe slug lead to a reduction
in pressure to between 20.0454 and 20.0438bara and finally stabilized at 20.0226bara. This is also a good
simulation because it shows that at this opening, the gas injected through the bypass line will reduce the
pressure of the fluid into the separator which has an acceptable pressure allowable rating of 20bara.
SPE-203693-MS 17

Figure 14—Self-lift Scenario 2 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 15, showed high fluid (crude oil) fluctuation, stating the quantity of hydrocarbon which is retained,
it is necessary to have a low holdup value. The initial holdup of the base case showed that the fluid was
been retained, and as such, not much hydrocarbons were being produced due to the severe slugging. This
result shows that the reduction in pressure was accompanied by a reasonable flow of crude oil up the riser
and into the separators.

Figure 15—Self-lift Scenario 2 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Scenario 3: Opening at Valve 1: 1, at Valve 2: 0.35 @ 4in of Diameter

Figure 16, seemed to act like the 0.85 and 0.65 valve closing scenario. Although there were fluctuations
between 20.0455 bara and about 20.04355 bara, pressure stabilizes at a value between 20.0445 bara and
20.045.
18 SPE-203693-MS

Figure 16—Self-lift Scenario 3 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 17, also showed a good response, it is seen that the HOL was reduced to between 0.205[-] and
0.206 [-] and stabilized at 0.206 [-] which is 0.0007[-] more than the previous scenario. This difference is
negligible and is safe to state that both scenarios (scenarios 2 and 3) mitigated the severe slug efficiently.
This result is very acceptable to the field of oil and gas production.

Figure 17—Self-lift Scenario 3 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Scenario 4: Opening at Valve 1: 1, at Valve 2: 0.65 @ 3in of Diameter

In this scenario, Valve 1 was fully open at 1 and valve 2 was opened at 65% and by-pass diameter of 3
inches was adapted.
Figure 18, seemed to act like the 0.85, 0.65 and 0.5 self-lift scenarios with the 4in diameter. Initially
characterized by a fluctuation between values before stabilizing at a certain pressure. The pressure trend
fluctuated between 20.0454 and about 20.0436, before stabilizing at 20.0446. The difference between this
scenario and the 4th scenario seems to be negligible as it is only a fraction of 10,000 (0.0001).
SPE-203693-MS 19

Figure 18—Self-lift Scenario 4 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 19, like the HOL from the first 4 scenarios, was reduced to between 0.205 and 0.206, but stabilized
at 0.2054. This result is also acceptable to the field of oil and gas production.

Figure 19—Self-lift Scenario 4 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Summary of Self-Lift Results

Highlight of the results showed that the self-lift technique is extremely useful in mitigating severe slugging.
In order to observe the effect, the change in diameter of the bypass line would have on the mitigation
of severe slugging and fluid holdup, bypass line opening results were obtained for 4 inches and 3 inches
diameters. It was found that regardless of the change in the diameter of the bypass line, the movement of
gas through the bypass line reduced both the hydrostatic head in the riser and the pressure in the pipeline,
consequently lessening or eliminating the severe slugging, which resulted into a stabilized flow condition.

Gas-Lift Severe Slug Mitigation

For this scenario, no valves were required, the parameter of interest was the mass flow rate of gas into the
riser base. As such, there was not a default gas flow of 2kg/s as seen in the self-lift model to prevent the
error message when running the model. The flowrate at source 1 was fixed at 3.25kg/s, while at source 2, it
was fixed at 12.13kg/s. Relevant flow properties in the project such as Pressure (PT), Liquid Holdup (HOL)
and Total liquid flowrate (QLT) were considered and observed.
20 SPE-203693-MS

Scenario 1: Gas Injected at 2kg/s

Figure 20 shows the pressure fluctuation at the topside (FPSO). The pressure is seen to fluctuate aggressively
between 20 and 20.6 bara. Although the recommended pressure at the separator is 20bara, the current
fluctuation will severely damage the separator on the long run due it instability, as such, this result does not
present a solution to the severe slugging problem.

Figure 20—Gas-lift Scenario 1 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 21, shows the holdup trend at the topside. Sever slugging is characterized by inconsistent flow
of fluids up the riser and into the separator. This result shows that the 2kg/s did not mitigate the slugging
problem. It constantly fluctuated between 0 and 0.8 which simply indicates the production of gas for a
period of time followed by the production of crude oil.

Figure 21—Gas-lift Scenario 1 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Scenario 2: Gas Injected at 5kg/s

Figure 22 shows the pressure fluctuation at the topside (FPSO). The pressure is seen to fluctuate aggressively
between 20.05 and 20.3 bara. Although the range of pressure fluctuation reduced, the current fluctuation
will cause damage to the separator regardless this is due its instability on the long run, as such, this result
does not present a solution to the severe slugging problem.
SPE-203693-MS 21

Figure 22—Gas-lift Scenario 2 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 23, shows the holdup trend at the topside. Severe slugging is characterized by inconsistent flow
of fluids up the riser and into the separator. This result shows that the 5kg/s did not mitigate the slugging
problem. It started out stabilized and began fluctuating between 0 and 0.45. The previous scenario has a
maximum holdup of 0.8, this scenario cut the maximum by 50%, but the fluctuations still indicate flow
instability which does not favour fluid production.

Figure 23—Gas-lift Scenario 2 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Scenario 3: Gas Injected at 7kg/s

Figure 24, shows the pressure fluctuation at the topside (FPSO). The pressure is seen to fluctuate initially
between 20.107 and 20.116 bara, but stabilizes at 20.112 bara. This result shows that the 5kg/s mass flow
rate mitigated the pressure fluctuations.
22 SPE-203693-MS

Figure 24—Gas-lift Scenario 3 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 25, shows the holdup trend at the topside. Severe slugging is characterized by inconsistent flow
of fluids up the riser and into the separator. This result shows that the 7kg/s injected mitigated the severe
slugging by drastically reducing the amount of crude oil retained. Although the holdup initially fluctuated
between 0.123 and 0.129, it stabilized at 0.1265. This is a positive response stating effective production
of fluids.

Figure 25—Gas-lift Scenario 3 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Scenario 4: Gas Injected at 12kg/s

In this scenario, gas-lift was injected at 12kg/s and observations were made on the behaviour of various
parameters such as pressure and liquid holdup.
Figure 26, shows the pressure fluctuation at the topside (FPSO). The pressure is seen to fluctuate initially
between 20.076 and 20.086 bara, but stabilizes at 20.08 bara. This result shows that the 12kg/s mass flow
rate mitigated the pressure fluctuations.
SPE-203693-MS 23

Figure 26—Gas-lift Scenario 4 Pressure Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Figure 27, shows the holdup trend at the topside. Severe slugging is characterized by inconsistent flow
of fluids up the riser and into the separator. This result shows that the 12kg/s injected mitigated the sever
slugging by drastically reducing the amount of crude oil retained. Although the holdup initially fluctuated
between 0.054 and 0.062, it stabilized at 0.058. This is a remarkable response stating effective production
of fluids as the fluid retention is highly reduced.

Figure 27—Gas-lift Scenario 5 Holdup Trend Plot at Topside (FPSO)

Summary of Gas Lift

Highlight of the results of gas-lift scenario showed that the gas lift technique is more effective in mitigating
severe slugging with increase in the amount of gas injected per time. This conclusion was made after the gas
lift technique was ran for 4 (four) scenarios; 2, 5, 7 and 12kg/s. It was also found that the gas lift technique
had the highest production yield from the 5, 7 and 12kg/s mass flow rate. They produced more hydrocarbon
than in the top 3 self-lift scenarios. Although these results showed that gas-lift technique is effective in
mitigating the severe slugging problem, the power consumption of each injection scenario proved to be
highly problematic as the process required large amounts of power.
Production Difference in Self-Lift and Gas Lift Technique and Gas-Lift Compression Power
Consumption
The production difference between the best scenarios of gas lift and self-lift techniques are shown below:
Based on data acquired from Aker-Solutions; gas compression technical team, power consumption was
ascertained as being in the range of 6377 kw for compressing 0.7057 kg/s of gas down a riser of over 1000m.
24 SPE-203693-MS

Conclusions
Conclusion and Recommendation
This section of the paper presents findings of the work carried out. The industry implications of the work
were also captured. The research presented in this work is focused on the numerical simulation of a typical
oil field case-study and the analysis of the result to compare the self-lift and gas-lift severe slug mitigation
techniques.

Summary of the key research findings

The research aimed to mainly compare the self-lift severe slug mitigation technique and the gas-lift severe
slug mitigation technique. As key part of the work, a base case scenario, exhibiting severe slugging was
modelled and subsequently; both gas-lift and self-lift were subsequently separately adapted to the based
case OLGA simulation model. The self-lift simulation model scenario indicated the effect of reduction in
by-pass diameter and moderation of valve opening in moderating severe slugging scenario, by reduction in
holdup and pressure fluctuation. The best scenario that led to best reduction in holdup and pressure drop
was however; 12 kg/s gas-lift scenario (scenario 4).

Comparison of the technical advantages and disadvantages of both techniques

Based on results obtained from both (self-lift and gas-lift) simulation models; it was clear that reduction in
by-pass diameter as well as reduction in valve opening gave rise to reduction in pressure fluctuation and
holdup. Also, gas-lift indicated a drop in hold-up and pressure fluctuation with increase in gas compressed.
The best performance was the 12kg/s gas-lift scenario. Some key disadvantage of self-lift technique is that;
it will be difficult to carry out pigging operations for instance; while for gas-lift the problem of the huge
power requirement involved in compressing the gas could pose a challenge.

Economic analysis of both techniques, based on their improvement to production and CAPEX and
OPEX.
Based on the data obtained from Aker Solutions, an economic analysis was carried out on the injection of
gas into the riser base in the gas-lift technique to determine the amount of energy required to inject gas
into the riser base and determine its efficiency in terms of produced fluids. This was necessary since the
self-lift technique does not require external gas and compressor. Based on the results obtained from Table
4 and Table 5 production was best with 12 kg/s gas-lift scenario. However, considering the cost of over $
10,000,000 (USD) involved in compressing gas with over 70,000,000 kw power requirement; there is need
for industry to give a keen consideration to the self-lift severe slug mitigation technique.

Table 4—Production Difference in Self-Lift and Gas Lift

SPE-203693-MS 25

Table 5—shows the amount of energy used to inject each gas-lift scenario.

Implication of the Research

Considering the fact that deep water oil and gas field development projects are expanding within West
Africa, there need to solve deep-water issues cannot be overemphasized. The problem researched is the
severe slugging of produced fluids and the comparative analysis of the self-lift and gas-lift mitigation
techniques. The self-lift technique does not require the compression facilities used in the gas-lift technique,
as such, it is important to determine the added cost of injecting gas into the riser base. This economic analysis
in addition to the severe slug mitigation efficiency is the reason behind the importance of this research.
This study will assist companies to weigh the pros and cons of self-lift and gas-lift severe slug mitigation
strategies in upcoming deep-water project, thereby giving them the opportunity to determine which strategy
would be more cost effective.
The gas-lift technique also proved to reduce riser-top pressure fluctuation and holdup, but only be
achieved by injecting large volumes of gas into the riser base with associated huge cost of generating power
of about 75,921,254.54 kw for the 12kg/s case; when holdup and pressure stabilized. This result presents a
challenge for companies seeking to minimize cost and increase productivity in production from deepwater
scenario.
Hence, there may be need to work towards adapting self-lift with gas-lift strategy to aim towards reducing
the gas-lift associated with a purely gas-lift scenario.
The following conclusions were reached based on the simulation study conducted.

• The entire cases of self-lift modifications decreased the pressure and holdup fluctuation in the pipe.

• The range of pressure and holdup fluctuations decreased with increase in gas mass flow rate in
the gas-lift model.

Recommendation
1. Self-lift approach should be considered for large scale experimental works
2. Attempts at field trial should also be considered to test the approach on offshore oil fields, considering
the potential profits/gain.
26 SPE-203693-MS

References
Ali, S.F., 2009. Two-phase flow in a large diameter vertical riser.
Beggs, D.H., Brill, J.P., 1973. A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. J. Pet. Technol. 25, 607–617.
Belt, R., Djoric, B., Kalali, S., Duret D., E. and L., 2011. Comparism of commercial multiphase flow simulators with
experimental and field databases, in: Multiphase Production Technology Conference. BHR, Cannes, pp. 413–427.
Bendiksen, K., Maines, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S., 1991. The dynamic two-fluid model OLGA: Theory and application.
SPE Prod. Eng. 6, 171–180.
Carneiro, J.N.E., Nieckele, A.O., 2007. Investigation of slug flow characteristics in inclined pipelines. WIT Trans. Eng.
Sci. 56, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.2495/MPF070181
Courbot, A., 1996. Prevention of severe slugging in the Dunbar 16-in. multiphase pipeline. Offshore Technology
Conference, Richardson, TX (United States).
de Almeida Barbuto, F.A., 1995. Method and apparatus for eliminating severe slug in multi-phase flow subsea lines.
Ellul, I.R., Saether, G., Reservoir, K., Shippen, M.E., 2004. The modeling of multiphase systems under steady-state and
transient conditions – A Tutorial. PSIG Annu. Meet. 403, 1–21.
Enilari, B.T., Engineer, S., Kara, F., 2015. Slug Flow and it 's Mitigation Techniques in the Oil and Gas Industry.
Fairhurst, P., Hassanein, T., 1998. Challenges in the Mechanical And Hydraulic Aspects of Riser Design for Deepwater
Developments, in: OFFSHORE PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY-CONFERENCE-. IBC TECHNICAL SERVICES
LIMITED, pp. 8–45.
Hagedorn, A., Brown, K., 1965. Experimental study of pressure gradients occurring during continuous two-phase flow
in small-diameter vertical conduits. J. Pet. Technol. 17, 475–484.
Hannisdal, A., Westra, R., Akdim, M.R., Bymaster, A., Grave, E., Teng, D.T., others, 2012. Compact separation
technologies and their applicability for subsea field development in deep water, in: Offshore Technology Conference.
Issa, R.I., Kempf, M.H.W., 2003. Simulation of slug flow in horizontal and nearly horizontal pipes with the two-fluid
model. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 29, 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(02)00127-1
Jansen, F.E., 1990. Elimination of severe slugging in a pipeline-riser system.
José, L.A., Paulo, C.C., 2014. STUDY OF SLUG CONTROL TECHNIQUES IN PIPELINE SYSTEMS Ocean
Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, COPPE / UFRJ Cidade Universitária – Bloco C - Ilha
do Fundão — 21945-970-Rio de Janeiro-RJ 3382–3388.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A., Aziz, K., 1974. A flow pattern map for gas—liquid flow in horizontal pipes. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 1, 537–553.
Meng, W., Zhang, J.J., 2001. Modeling and mitigation of severe riser slugging: a case study, in: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Mokhatab, S., Towler, B.F., Purewal, S., 2007. A review of current technologies for severe slugging remediation. Pet.
Sci. Technol. 25, 1235–1245.
Murashov, I., 2015. MASTER 'S THESIS.
Okereke, N.U., Ogiriki, S.O., Igbafe, A.I., others, 2018. Self-Lift and Gas-Lift Slug Mitigation Techniques Combined: A
New Approach to Severe Slug Mitigation in Deepwater Scenario, in: SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference
and Exhibition.
Okereke, N.U., Omotara, O.O., 2018. Combining self-lift and gas-lift: A new approach to slug mitigation in deepwater
pipeline-riser systems. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
Omowunmi, S.C., Abdulssalam, M., Janssen P., R. and O., 2013. Methodology for characterising slugs and operational
mitigation strategy using OLGA slug tracking module - Egina Deepwater Project, in: Offshore Mediterranean
Conference. OMC, Ravenna, Italy, pp. 1–14.
PetroWiki, 2018. Gas lift - [WWW Document]. PetroWiki. Accessed 14/03/20
Pittman, R., 1982. Gas Lift Design and Performance.
Pots, B.F.M., Bromilow, I.G., Konijn, M.J.W.F., 1987. Severe slug flow in offshore flowline/riser systems. SPE Prod.
Eng. 2, 319–324.
Ragab, A., Brandstaetter, W., 2008. Analysis of Multiphase Production through Hilly Terrain Pipelines in Matzen Field
Austria by CFD. SPE Annu. Tech. … 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2118/115355-MS
Sancho, AndréSancho, André. 2015. "Severe Slugging in Pipelines: Modelling, S. and M. https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/
downloadFile/1126295043834524/ExtendedAbstract_Andre_Sancho_n70016.pdf., 2015. Severe Slugging in
pipelines: Modelling, Simulation and Mitigation.
Sarica, C., Tengesdal, J.Ø., Pennsylvania, T., 2000. SPE 63185 A New Technique to Eliminate Severe Slugging in
Pipeline / Riser Systems.
Sarica, C., Yuan, G., Shang, W., Pereyra, E., Kouba, G., 2014. Feasibility and Evaluation of Surfactants and Gas Lift in
Combination as Severe Slugging Suppression Method.
SPE-203693-MS 27

Schmidt, Z., Doty, D.R., Dutta-Roy, K., 1985. Severe slugging in offshore pipeline riser-pipe systems. Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
25, 27–38.
Shea, R., Eidsmoen, H., Nordsveen, M., Rasmussen, J., Xu, Z., Nossen, J., 2004. Slug frequency prediction method
comparison. BHRG Multiph. Prod. Technol. Proceedings, Banff, Canada.
Shea, R.H., Rasmussen, J., Hedne, P., Malnes, D., 1997. Holdup predictions for wet-gas pipelines compared. Oil Gas J. 95.
Shotbolt, T., 1986. Methods for the Alleviation of Slug Flow Problems and Their Influence on Field Development
Planning, in: European Petroleum Conference.
Song, S., Kouba, G., 2000. ‘Characterizations of Multiphase Flow In Ultra-Deep Subsea Pipeline/Riser System, in: Energy
Sources Technology Conference & Exhibition, February. pp. 14–17.
Taitel, Y., 1986. Stability of severe slugging. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 12, 203–217.
Tengesdal, J.O., 2003. Investigation of self-lifting concept for severe slugging elimination in deep-water pipeline/riser
systems.
Tengesdal, J.Ø., Pennsylvania, T., Thompson, L., 2003. SPE 84227 A Design Approach for " Self-Lifting " Method to
Eliminate Severe Slugging in Offshore Production Systems.
Tengesdal, J.Ø., U, P.S., Thompson, L., Sarica, C., Tulsa, U., 2005. A Design Approach for a " Self-Lifting " Method To
Eliminate Severe Slugging in Offshore Production Systems 5–8.
Vidal, J.L.A., Cenpes, P., Monteiro, P.C.C., Silva, L.L., Netto, T.A., Engineering, O., 2013. OTC 24293 Study of Slug
Control Techniques in Pipeline Systems.
Wyllie, M.W.J., Brackenridge, A., 1994. A Retrofit Solution to Reduce Slugging Effects in Multiphase Subsea Pipelines
The Internal Riser Insert System (IRIS), in: 1994 Subsea International Conference.
Yocum, B.T., 1973. Offshore riser slug flow avoidance: Mathematical models for design and optimization. Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME.